SCOTUS tosses NYC Case

[Glenn E. Meyer]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wire..._headlines_hed

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court sidestepped a major decision on gun rights Monday in a dispute over New York City’s former ban on transporting guns.

The justices threw out a challenge from gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association's New York affiliate. The court ruled that the city’s move to ease restrictions on taking licensed, locked and unloaded guns outside the city limits, coupled with a change in state law to prevent New York from reviving the ban, left the court with nothing to decide. The court asked a lower court to consider whether the city’s new rules still pose problems for gun owners.

Kavanaugh and Roberts went along with the toss. The article and decision needs to be parsed by legal experts. My naive opinion is that it is another fizzle and let's wait for the golden case to come along sometime about the year 3512 AD.

I don't know why they even bothered to waste so much time on a trivial case that would have a trivial outcome as compared to the great threats to the 2nd Amendment on the state and potentially Federal levels.

[CalAlumnus]

Very disappointing. This was a big opportunity for SCOTUS to clarify the standard of review for 2A cases--either by reiterating the Heller "text, history and tradition" standard and prohibiting "rational basis cloaked as intermediate scrutiny," or by going to strict scrutiny. The advantage of this case was that the matter at issue was relatively minor; it wouldn't have directly produced nationwide shall-issue or prohibited assault weapon bans, but the standard of review could have.

Instead, this decision produces a blueprint for how governments can evade review of unconstitutional laws. Alito's dissent describes the problems when the court refuses to rule on matters that became moot only after SCOTUS granted cert. The repercussions of this may go far beyond the 2A.

That said, this ruling likely isn't about the law. Roberts is very concerned about SCOTUS being viewed as a political branch, and this is an election year. By mooting this case and granting cert to one of the ten 2A cases that SCOTUS is holding, a decision will be delayed until June 2021--after the election. I think it's as simple as that. Kavanaugh's concurrence suggests that a new grant may be forthcoming.

The ten 2A cases that SCOTUS is holding include six carry cases, two assault weapon cases, a microstamping case, an interstate sales case. Gura Lots of possibilities there. If I had to guess, I'd say to look at Pena (microstamping) and Rogers (carry) as potential grants.

[RoyGBiv]

Alito seemed pissed and Gorsuch joined entirely in Alitos dissent.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ali...-supreme-court

[BillSWPA]

My understanding from law school is that amending a law after suit is filed does not make a case moot, because the law can simply be amended back once the suit is dismissed. In this case, with the state law prohibiting the city from enacting a new law, the argument for mootness is stronger, but given the makeup of the NY legislature and ease with which the unconstitutional restrictions could be re-imposed, I agree completely with the dissent that this case is not moot.

[wvincent]

What a gutless move.
Sure wish the Supreme's would address why some locales can supplant a person's inherent rights.
Roberts needs to sack the fuck up and do his job. Avoidance in an election year reeks of cowardice.

[ssb]

I will say that I do not think this case was the vehicle the 2A community needed to truly define the right. The cliche of bad facts making bad law exists for a reason, and in this case, the options for a pro-2A ruling were -- in my view -- a) a narrow, facts-based ruling sort of like they did with the Massachussetts stun-gun case; b) a narrow ruling which gave us a standard of review and left lower courts to re-litigate 2A issues in consideration of that standard of review (IMO, would mean far more time before the right was truly fleshed out); or c) a broad and forceful ruling which would immediately invite further partisan criticism.

While I'm sure Glenn will be along shortly to talk about how some of us have SCOTUS battered woman syndrome, I did find this to be an interesting development:

Several themes emerge from the cases that the justices will now review on Friday. The justices are being asked to weigh in on (among other things) whether and to what extent the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense, whether state and local governments can ban assault rifles and large-capacity magazines and whether the federal ban on interstate gun sales is unconstitutional. A full list of the 10 cases distributed for Friday’s conference, as well as a brief description of the question presented in each one, follows the jump.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/04/a...ay-conference/

Ten 2A cert petitions were moved to Friday's conference. There are several CCW cases in the pipeline, and with four justices now explicitly stating they believe the lower courts are failing on 2A issues (and Kavanaugh's not-so-subtle "there are other cases pending" line in his concurrence), I personally read these tea leaves slightly more optimistically.